I have criticized FIRE’s split personality–their litigation side engages in great across-the-board free-speech advocacy; their public education and political side engages in partisan hackery, defined by right-wing talking points about “cancel culture,” conflating criticism with censorship, and supporting it all with statistically and logically questionable surveys.
Milan Markovic (Texas) and his tag-team partner Mike Boylan-Kolchin (astrophysicist at Texas) make similar arguments about FIRE’s latest dubious survey of self-censorship among law faculty, which will be used to further right-wing attacks on higher education.
Meanwhile, Ken White (“Popehat”) makes a slightly different point that I second: FIRE conflates defending obnoxious speech and speakers as a matter of free speech principle and celebrating and valorizing the obnoxious speech and speakers. That is, it conflates arguing that obnoxious speakers (Amy Wax, Ilya Shapiro, Charlie Kirk, Proud Boys, etc.) must be allowed to speak because free speech principles prohibit government from stopping speakers based on the content of their speech with celebrating those speakers by providing them a platform from which to express their offensive ideas.
The actions of the litigation side and those of the political/education side are all legitimate. But they may conflict or undermine one another. FIRE can shout all day about the vast swath of professors they represent in First Amendment cases. People may doubt them “a neutral First Amendment organization” if they platform MAGA speakers and recite MAGA political talking points about higher ed.